Stephanski v. Allen

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: February 18, 2020
• Docket: 9:18-cv-00076
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PAUL STEPHANSKI,

Plaintiff, 9:18-cv-0076 (BKS/CFH)

v.

RANDY ALLEN, THOMAS STACKLE and BRANDON PAYNE,

Defendants.

Appearances: Plaintiff, pro se Paul Stephanski 99-B-2439 Marcy Correctional Facility PO Box 3600 Marcy, NY 13403 For Defendants: Letitia James Attorney General of the State of New York Aimee Cowan Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel 300 South State Street Suite 300 Syracuse, NY 13202 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Paul Stephanski, a New York State inmate, commenced this action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of his incarceration at the Cape Vincent Correctional Facility. (Dkt. No. 1). On June 26, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 39). Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 26, 2019, to which Defendants replied on August 30, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 45). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel, who issued a Report-Recommendation on January 22, 2020, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (Dkt. No. 48). Magistrate Judge Hummel concluded that there is “an issue of material fact as [to] the availability of the grievance process, and, thus, whether administrative remedies were available”

to Plaintiff. (Id. at 24). Magistrate Judge Hummel advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Id. at 25). No objections have been filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report- Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228–29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-

Recommendation in its entirety. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 48) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Court will schedule an evidentiary exhaustion hearing; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2020 Syracuse, New York Aer of A kc nannies Brenda K. Sannes U.S. District Judge